On lör, 2008-05-17 at 13:14 +0100, Dave Shield wrote: > 2008/5/11 Magnus Fromreide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I stupidly trusted the helpers to do the right thing and tried to > > register > > > > snmp.[1-6].0 > > snmp.[8-22].0 > > snmp.[24-29].0 > > snmp.30.0 > > > > as scalar_groups (and a scalar) but the problem is that they all try to > > register snmp in order to return a nothing here message. > > Yes - the scalar_group "indexing" is a bit simplistic. > What it really needs is a linked list of valid range structures > (similar to the handling of table columns).
Quite possibly. The interesting thing from my point of view is that scalar registers <oid> and answers with the value for <oid>.0 and with NO_SUCH_OBJECT otherwise whereas scalar_group registers <oid> and answers with the value for <oid>.<index>.0 and with NO_SUCH_OBJECT otherwise. I expected scalar_group to register <oid>.<indices> and thus work like scalar but with a nonzero ubound and uindex. /MF ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
